- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:24:02 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-iri@w3.org, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
On Sep 4, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> This could be meant as a test for >> relative references, but then the next step is: >> >> Consume characters up to, but not including, the first ":" >> character. These characters are the /scheme/. To the extent that I can relate this spec to browser behaviors, I think this step is wrong. Browsers look for a ":" that occurs before any character that can't appear in a scheme under any circumstances, and that includes "#" and "/" for example. If a ":" isn't found before hitting a non-scheme character, the URL is invalid. >> >> This would leave, say, "#:" as absolute reference with a scheme of >> "#", as it contains a colon and "#" is the part before the first ":" >> (similarily, ":" would be one with the empty string as scheme). > > We have not yet defined how to resolve relative URLs. The parsing > definition, at least so far, is a definition of how to parse absolute > URLs. If you were asked to regard the string "#:" as an absoute URL, > it seems like treating "#" as the scheme would be one reasonable > interpretation. I haven't thought through canonicalization yet, but I > suspect testing will reveal that "#" is not a valid character for a > scheme. It's hard to tell if this makes sense without understanding what browser behavior would reflect this. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 01:24:38 UTC